accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Tubbs (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3530) alterTable/NamespaceProperty should use Fate locks
Date Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:29:35 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14292365#comment-14292365
] 

Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-3530:
---------------------------------------------

That's fine, but it doesn't explain how that's expected to solve the consistency problem.
The consistency problem is hard, because ZK configs can propagate at different times in different
servers, and we don't know how to instruct servers to expire their cache.

Unless... are you proposing that the fate operation itself propagate instructions to expire
every tserver's cache of the property being changed?

> alterTable/NamespaceProperty should use Fate locks
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3530
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3530
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: John Vines
>
> Fate operations, such as clone table, have logic in place to ensure consistency as the
operation occurs. However, operaitons like alterTableProperty can still interfere because
there is no locking done. We should add identical locking to these methods in MasterClientServiceHandler
to help ensure consistency.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message